Christ the Center
Cornelius Van Til
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) developed a unique approach to apologetics which stemmed from a solid foundation in reformed theology and a background in Idealist philosophy. His method has been called presuppositionalism, transcendental and covenantal. Many recent theologians have been influenced by Van Til’s thought, especially current faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary where he so faithfully taught. Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy and Camden Bucey discuss Cornelius Van Til and his tremendous contribution to reformed apologetics.
Bibliography
Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. P & R Publishing, 1998.
Boa, Kenneth D., and Robert M. Bowman Jr. Faith Has Its Reasons: An Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity (An Apologetics Handbook). Paternoster, 2006.
Cowan, Steven B., Stanley N. Gundry, William Lane Craig, Paul D. Feinberg, Kelly James Clark, John Frame, et al. Five Views on Apologetics. Zondervan, 2000.
Frame, John. Cornelius Van Til : an analysis of his thought. Phillipsburg N.J.: P&R Pub., 1995.
Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Dutton Adult, 2008.
Muether, John. Cornelius Van Til : Reformed apologist and churchman. Phillipsburg N.J.: P&R Pub., 2007.
Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press, USA, 1999.
White, William. Van Til, defender of the faith : an authorized biography. Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1979.
Other Formats
Discussion
4 comments for “Cornelius Van Til”
Post a comment
Subscribe to All Programs
Categories
Calendar
Help Support Us
Gratitude. Excellent! Gentlemen, here is what I love about these episodes. I’m Van Tilian, as they say, yet as you all would affirm, reading Van Til is not a walk in the park. Many of us suspect that we have grasped what Van Til is positing, but are never quite sure because it is deep and rich. So then, listening to this discussion does two wonderful things for me: 1) Clarifies the Presuppositional perspective, increasing my confidence, and (especially) 2) Explains other views out there, ones which I don’t have time to study, or perhaps am not aware of. I’ve read other apologetics views, but for the most part, I won’t go out of my way to purchase books “from the other side” because my time is limited. So thank you for such a wonderful reflection on this important issue.
Question. I’m not sure how natural reveals a specifically Triune God. Did I hear you incorrectly? Yes, nature reveals the “God of the Bible,” not merely the idea of a divine being. But I understand this to mean that every “creature” has the imprint of the “Creator” on our heart, the seed of divinity. But how could we possibly argue for the Triune God from nature to an unbeliever? It doesn’t seem that this can be accomplished apart from the revelation of this Triune God found in the Word of God.
David
Good question. I should clarify myself. I meant to say that the God who is revealed in nature is the Triune God and not another. Now the question of whether he has revealed himself in nature as Triune is a debated matter. It would seem that God reveals himself in nature as existent, powerful, and holy, etc. And that we only get information about the Triune nature of God in Scripture and even that is revealed progressively over time. However, Augustine and others have argued for what are called the “vestigia trinitatis” or vestiges of the Trinity in nature (human nature being one analogy). Is Augustine correct about this? It is a question worth wrestling with and I have not given enough thought to the question to settle it definitively in my own mind.
This is a good subject for a future CTC.
But let’s be clear that the God who has revealed himself in nature is the same God who has revealed himself in Scripture and that God is Triune. In other words, if I may draw on the simple point made by Irenaeus of Lyons in his argument against the Gnostics, the Creator God is also the Redeemer God. There are aspects of creation which seem to point to a Trinitarian God such as the relation of the one and the many and the relation of universals and particulars (facts and laws or one human being and human nature). So I guess I am sympathetic with Augustine even if I have not settled the matter.
David
An article by William Dennison touches upon our topic here and can be found in Kerux, September 2006,
pages 13-34 under the title “Natural and Special Revelation: A
Reassessment.”
[...] first addresses Van Til and his apologetic click here to [...]